A Spirited Perfect Ten

[Quinnmac000]

I'm not sure about the bolded. I agree with your point about people always preferring MK over the other parks, but I think it also applies to Fantasyland within MK. Bring people to WDW, and MK gets disproportionately crowded. Bring people to MK, Fantasyland gets disproportionately crowded.

Fantasyland also has the 13 "attractions" (Not including dining or stores) in that relatively tight area compared to the rest of the park meaning it should always be the most crowded. With that, you are going to need a lot more high capacity rides. Maybe not E ticket but D's for sure

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Fantasyland also has the 13 "attractions" (Not including dining or stores) in that relatively tight area compared to the rest of the park meaning it should always be the most crowded. With that, you are going to need a lot more high capacity rides. Maybe not E ticket but D's for sure

But then you're back to the same catch-22. More rides (whether they're high capacity or not) will bring more people into Fantasyland and make that tight area even more congested. These numbers are totally made up but just looking at what happened with NFL makes it seem like every 20% increase in capacity will be met with a 25% increase in demand.

 

[GoofGoof]

I look forward to your surprised gasp in a few weeks when the TEA numbers are released. The times, they are a'changing.



Sorry, I was talking about Diagon/Gringotts and Fantasyland.

I don't think anyone can argue Antarctica is anything but disappointing.



I think that would certainly help, but the problem is anything that draws people to Walt Disney World will draw people to the Magic Kingdom. No one is going to go to WDW and not go to the MK. Hell, I'd venture a guess that anyone going to Orlando with their family won't skip the MK. So the park itself still needs to handle people much better than it does now.

I fear what the MK will be like if they actually do draw a huge increase in attendance with Star Wars and/or Avatar. It's bad enough already with crowds. All this Potter stuff has driven their numbers up too. Maybe some people skip DHS or AK or an extra day at EPCOT to go to Uni now but they still hit MK too. They do seem to be extending hours recently, but it's not gonna matter if 20% more people show up.

 

[GLaDOS]

Also, get out of here with "totally immersive environment" when these monstrosities exist.

Totally immersive my backside.

I can get behind your hate of Rockit.

Dragons is a great coaster, and a beautiful one at that, so I don't mind it in the slightest.

But Springfield? Come on. Springfield is great. Love everything about that place. It's head to toe legit.

 

[realdizfan]

At this point I've concluded that if you can't appreciate Little Mermaid for what it is, you're just far too jaded for me to ever take seriously. It's a superb dark ride (better now with the blacklighting) with one of the best queues in the whole of Orlando (and one of WDW's best queues ever to be honest) and a great meet & greet. It's not Harry Potter, and it's not Transformers. It's a friggen omni-mover dark ride that clocks in at 6 minutes (longer, by the way, than all but 2 of Universals entire line up) with some superior animatronics and is adored by it's demographic (CHILDREN). It's also a major people-eater.

I don't understand how people don't see it as literally one of the quintessential Disney dark rides, it is a perfect fit for MK/New Fantasyland. I'd be upset if anything else took it's place because I don't want nothing but e-tickets and show stoppers- especially in Fantasyland which has never had rides of that sort in the first place.

 

[Quinnmac000]

But then you're back to the same catch-22. More rides (whether they're high capacity or not) will bring more people into Fantasyland and make that tight area even more congested. These numbers are totally made up but just looking at what happened with NFL makes it seem like every 20% increase in capacity will be met with a 25% increase in demand.

It depends on what attractions they add. If its more Journey of the little mermaid and based on an older IP, I doubt people will come in droves and it would even the park out.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Dragons is a great coaster, and a beautiful one at that, so I don't mind it in the slightest.

There's nuance in my argument. I didn't say Dragons is a bad coaster (I quite enjoy it and I'm not a huge coaster enthusiast by any stretch). I said it directly contradicts the previous point about a "totally immersive environment." Good or not, it absolutely doesn't belong in the magical land of fantasy from which you can see it.

But Springfield? Come on. Springfield is great. Love everything about that place. It's head to toe legit.

It's plastic figures everywhere. I'm far too lazy, but nonetheless 99% certain I could go back to some old DAAR threads and see tons of criticism about how Disney took the cheap way out with the way that resort is decorated.

 

[GLaDOS]

I don't understand how people don't see it as literally one of the quintessential Disney dark rides.

Well, because it's not. It's a good Fantasyland dark ride, but let's not lose our heads here.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

It depends on what attractions they add. If its more Journey of the little mermaid and based on an older IP, I doubt people will come in droves and it would even the park out.

Or you could just put Frozen in Epcot and all the little girlies will flee to the World Showcase.

 

[twebber55]

Sorry I don’t follow. I was talking about Uni’s growth and never even mentioned Disney.

Wasnt talking about you
In fact i have no idea what you said

 

[Quinnmac000]

There's nuance in my argument. I didn't say Dragons is a bad coaster (I quite enjoy it and I'm not a huge coaster enthusiast by any stretch). I said it directly contradicts the previous point about a "totally immersive environment." Good or not, it absolutely doesn't belong in the magical land of fantasy from which you can see it.


It's plastic figures everywhere. I'm far too lazy, but nonetheless 99% certain I could go back to some old DAAR threads and see tons of criticism about how Disney took the cheap way out with the way that resort is decorated.

I would rather have plastic figures than people who look nothing like the characters they are suppose to be. Case in point, snow white looking like a smoker in her early 30s. I know first hand because it happened with my niece. She asked Snow White why she looked so old.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I would rather have plastic figures than people who look nothing like the characters they are suppose to be. Case in point, snow white looking like a smoker in her early 30s.

Wait, what?

 

[GLaDOS]

There's nuance in my argument. I didn't say Dragons is a bad coaster (I quite enjoy it and I'm not a huge coaster enthusiast by any stretch). I said it directly contradicts the previous point about a "totally immersive environment." Good or not, it absolutely doesn't belong in the magical land of fantasy from which you can see it.

Agree to disagree. I don't have a problem with coasters, as long as they're not ugly ala Rockit. I don't think it hurts the thematic integrity of the land.

It's plastic figures everywhere. I'm far too lazy, but nonetheless 99% certain I could go back to some old DAAR threads and see tons of criticism about how Disney took the cheap way out with the way that resort is decorated.

There are 4 plastic figures dispersed through the land, and only one is prominently displayed outside. I'm not exactly sure what the problem with them is, nor am I really sure how they're comparable to the lazy attempt to theme a motel that is the All-Star resorts.

 

[Quinnmac000]

Wait, what?

I thought you were talking about not just the decoration but the characters being out and about.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I thought you were talking about not just the decoration but the characters being out and about.

And there's a chain smoking Snow White running around somewhere?

 

[ParentsOf4]

Guys, even COMCAST isn't saying that Transformers had anything to do with attendance growth in FY14. Like I suspected, it's the sustained success of Potter.

Theme Parks segment revenue increased in 2014 and 2013 primarily due to higher guest attendance and increases in per capita spending at our Orlando and Hollywood theme parks. The increase in 2014 was primarily due to new attractions, such as The Wizarding World of Harry Potter™ – Diagon Alley™ in Orlando and Despicable Me: Minion Mayhem in Hollywood. The increase in 2013 was primarily due to the continued success of The Wizarding World of Harry Potter™ attraction in Orlando and the Transformers attractions in Orlando and Hollywood.

In other words (chronologically):
2013 - Bump from Potter and Transformers
2014 - CONTINUED BUMP FROM POTTER, no more bump from Transformers

Your time line is a bit jumbled. Universal tends to open it attractions for summer. Therefore, year-to-year (Y2Y) growth from those attractions for the following 12 months needs be be evaluated across 2 fiscal years.

• June 2010: Wizzarding World of Harry Potter (a.k.a. Hogsmead) opens
• End of December 2010: Annual revenue up 33.3% (6.5 months of WWOHP)
• End of December 2011: Annual revenue up 24.3% (5.5 months of WWOHP)
• July 2012: Minion Mayhem opens in Orlando
• End of December 2012: Annual revenue up 4.8% (the bump from Phase 1 of Harry Potter is over)
• June-August 2013: Springfield opens in phases
• June 2013: Transformers opens
• End of December 2013: Annual revenue up 7.2% (6 months of Springfield/Transformers)
• April 2014: Minion Mayhem opens in Hollywood
• July 2014: Diagon Alley opens
• End of December 2014: Annual revenue up 17.4% (9 months of Minion Mayhem in Hollywood, 6 months of Springfield/Transformers, and 6 months of Diagon Alley)
• End of March 2015: 1st quarter revenue up 33.7% (3 months of Minion Mayhem in Hollywood, 3 months of Diagon Alley)

 

[realdizfan]

Fact:
If the Magic Kingdom's installation of Little Mermaid was never built here in the states, and was instead put into Tokyo's Fantasyland or even DisneySea as a unique attraction- most of the people around here would be screaming bloody murder about how unfair it is that Tokyo yet-again got a superior dark ride that the US parks would never dream of.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Your time line is a bit jumbled. Universal tends to open it attractions for summer. Therefore, year-to-year (Y2Y) growth from those attractions for the following 12 months needs be be evaluated across 2 fiscal years.

• June 2010: Wizzarding World of Harry Potter (a.k.a. Hogsmead) opens
• End of December 2010: Annual revenue up 33.3% (6.5 months of WWOHP)
• End of December 2011: Annual revenue up 24.3% (5.5 months of WWOHP)
• July 2012: Minion Mayhem opens in Orlando
• End of December 2012: Annual revenue up 4.8% (the bump from Phase 1 of Harry Potter is over)
• June-August 2013: Springfield opens in phases
• June 2013: Transformers opens
• End of December 2013: Annual revenue up 7.2% (6 months of Springfield/Transformers)
• April 2014: Minion Mayhem opens in Hollywood
• July 2014: Diagon Alley open
• End of December 2014: Annual revenue up 17.4% (9 months of Minion Mayhem in Hollywood, 6 months of Springfield/Transformers, and 6 months of Diagon Alley)
• End of March 2015: 1st quarter revenue up 33.7% (3 months of Diagon Alley)

Understood, but the post you quoted wasn't me just making things up. It was pulled directly from their annual report. If you're saying that analysis is wrong, take it up with Comcast.

 

[Skip]

Fact:
If the Magic Kingdom's installation of Little Mermaid was never built here in the states, and was instead put into Tokyo's Fantasyland or even DisneySea as a unique attraction- most of the people around here would be screaming bloody murder about how unfair it is that Tokyo yet-again got a superior dark ride that the US parks would never dream of.

You have an interesting idea of what qualifies as a "fact."

I imagine people would be annoyed that Walt Disney World or Disneyland still hadn't gotten a substantial Little Mermaid attraction. I don't think they would be lavishing praise on the existing ride - because frankly, it doesn't deserve it.

 

[realdizfan]

Your time line is a bit jumbled. Universal tends to open it attractions for summer. Therefore, year-to-year (Y2Y) growth from those attractions for the following 12 months needs be be evaluated across 2 fiscal years.

• June 2010: Wizzarding World of Harry Potter (a.k.a. Hogsmead) opens
• End of December 2010: Annual revenue up 33.3% (6.5 months of WWOHP)
• End of December 2011: Annual revenue up 24.3% (5.5 months of WWOHP)
• July 2012: Minion Mayhem opens in Orlando
• End of December 2012: Annual revenue up 4.8% (the bump from Phase 1 of Harry Potter is over)
• June-August 2013: Springfield opens in phases
• June 2013: Transformers opens
• End of December 2013: Annual revenue up 7.2% (6 months of Springfield/Transformers)
• April 2014: Minion Mayhem opens in Hollywood
• July 2014: Diagon Alley open
• End of December 2014: Annual revenue up 17.4% (9 months of Minion Mayhem in Hollywood, 6 months of Springfield/Transformers, and 6 months of Diagon Alley)
• End of March 2015: 1st quarter revenue up 33.7% (3 months of Diagon Alley)

We have no idea how those revenues stack up against Disney without some actual hard numbers. Percentages are the ultimate tool to obfuscate. I'm guessing that this massive revenue growth which is probably on the order of double compared to pre-Potter still isn't close to the revenues generated by the WDW parks. I'm be happy for someone to prove me wrong with real per-cap numbers and not messaged numbers.

People seem to forget the fact the Universal lost a huge amount of revenue and attendance in the years leading up to Potter. If anything, a large amount of their "growth" in the following years was offset by prior losses. 33% growth that was preceded by a 12% loss the year before just doesn't sound as impressive... That combined with a billion in new capital costs means that revenue better see double digit gains for years afterword.